Zach Polanski in October 2025 (Imageplotter/Alamy)

7 min read12 min

Unilateral nuclear disarmament, diplomacy accented on human rights, global justice and climate change, and rejoining the EU – until recently, these were the pillars of Green Party foreign and defence policy. But the Gaza war, which has seen the party’s support and membership swell because of its stance against the Israeli government, is remaking its outlook.

Deep division over fundamental questions like Nato membership and defence spending, combined with a cumbersome policymaking process and a higher level of media scrutiny, seems likely to make the process of formulating a new foreign and defence policy painful.

The party’s International Working Group is in the process of conducting a substantial review of foreign policy, with final proposals expected to come before members at the autumn conference if completed in time. 

Those involved say the review is intended to reassess Britain’s place in the world in terms that will “stand the test of time”, rather than focus narrowly on individual conflicts such as Palestine.

“We have something on international institutions, conflict prevention, and peace building, but I’m not at liberty to say what’s in it because it’s still in draft stage at the moment,” says Animah Kosai, a member of the policymaking group. 

The review is also taking place against a backdrop of growing hostility within the party towards the United States under Donald Trump. Senior Greens argue Britain’s relationship with Washington requires fundamental reassessment. 

A senior Green source tells The House: “Is it smart to be dependent on the US when Donald Trump can be making demands threatening to annex Greenland, threatening to withdraw Nato protection if people won’t join his insane, illegal war on Iran?” 

“We’ve benefited from being very close to the US in many ways, and I think now it’s time to reassess that relationship,” says Kosai, adding: “The UK needs to claim back its own sovereignty because we’re so reliant in many respects.

“The US, whether it’s Trump or whoever, holds an inordinate amount of power compared to the rest of the world, and we can see that they overreach that power too. Whether we’re talking about the United Nations or anywhere else, that’s something that we’re highly aware of in the policy working group and in the party.”

Polanski himself has recently called on the British government to end military alliances with the US in response to the war with Iran, echoing positions adopted by Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. Senior party figures say Polanski greatly admires Sánchez’s willingness to challenge Trump publicly.

“We see Pedro Sánchez as someone who’s really stepped up to the moment,” says a senior Green Party source.

“He’s said no to Trump using Spanish bases, he’s investing big domestically, he’s someone who really talks about investing in defence and is recognising that that can be quite a broad thing.

“You can be talking about energy independence and resilience and freedom of resilience – defence is about more than just weapons.”

Senior sources say Polanski has yet to meet Sánchez but do not rule out a meeting between the pair in the future. 

With the Labour government already making the case for stronger ties with Europe, Green Party peer Baroness Bennett says a Green Party European defence group has been set up to discuss major security issues and describes it as “a natural way forward” for shaping future defence policy. 

The party typically has two conferences each year, the first taking place in spring and the second in autumn, alongside the other party conferences. This year’s spring conference in March was trialled online to make it more accessible to members. It only lasted half a day, but attendees told The House it was “a disaster”.

A contentious motion that would have designated Zionism as racism was put forward for debate but failed to pass due to “filibustering by people in the Israeli lobby”, according to one.

“Emotions were high, and it was very binary and divided,” they explained. 

The motion is expected to return at the autumn conference, where members anticipate similarly fierce divisions. For some within the party, the dispute has prompted broader questions about whether the Greens’ existing system for determining policy remains fit for purpose.

We see Pedro Sánchez as someone who’s really stepped up to the moment

The Greens’ internal policymaking system, largely unchanged for decades, is widely viewed as cumbersome and increasingly strained by the party’s expanding membership. 

“The process is incredibly long-winded,” one source says, adding that the growth in membership has made it “unwieldy”. 

“There is a lot of consultation. It is relatively inflexible. People are quite conscious that you shouldn’t put too much detail in [the motions] so that leadership can widely interpret,” explains Paul Ingham, a member of the Peace, Security and Defence working group.

Support for the Green Party has grown rapidly under Polanski’s leadership and now boasts over 200,000 members. It is widely attributed to the party’s uncompromising stance on Gaza, an issue that has increasingly eclipsed climate policy at the centre of the party’s identity. 

Senior figures within the party do not dispute that shift. Instead, they argue that the conflict is inseparable from the Greens’ wider environmental agenda, pointing to what they describe as “the environmental impact of the genocide in Gaza”. 

The issue has become increasingly visible at a local level, too. Following gains in last month’s local elections, a number of councils – including those in Lewisham, Tower Hamlets and Hastings – have passed motions to twin with Palestinian towns or establish partnership links, reflecting the prominence of the issue among Green activists and voters. 

“I joined the party towards the end of 2024 because I was very attracted by its position on Palestine,” Kosai says.

Kosai is among those backing a motion that would permit Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) measures being adopted by Green-run local councils. If endorsed at the party’s autumn conference, councils could be empowered to terminate contracts with businesses deemed “complicit in genocide and Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine”. 

“It’s got quite a strong support,” she explains. 

The party last reviewed its defence policy in 2023, in a process heavily influenced by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. That review marked a significant shift away from the party’s long-standing support for withdrawing from Nato, with the Greens instead adopting a position calling for reform of the alliance. 

However, Polanski’s view of Nato remains sceptical. In an interview with Channel 4 earlier this year, he said: “I don’t think it’s possible to reform Nato from within.” 

Green sources say the leader would prefer a European equivalent that does not involve the US. Yet Green Party policy is determined by members rather than the leadership, leaving Polanski unable to impose his own position unilaterally.

A motion on Nato is due to be debated at the autumn conference, though party figures say the issue has already become deeply contentious. According to insiders, divisions within the defence working group have grown so severe that the group has been removed from the process altogether.

Defence spending has emerged as another fault line. Current party policy supports reducing expenditure, but the pressures of two major international conflicts have intensified calls within the party for a reassessment to potentially back a boost in spending. 

“If there were to be a debate around defence spending, there would be huge and vigorous pushback,” says Ingham. 

“If we don’t have that debate in the next year or two, then there is going to be a lot of discomfort in the party. There are some who will be legalistic. There will be others who say it is a bit outdated. Then there will be some who say a debate will be unavoidable. Passions and beliefs are so strong in this area.” 

Ed Davey has served as leader of the Liberal Democrats since 2020 (Alamy)

8 min read9 min

In 2024, the Lib Dems achieved a record result with 72 MPs elected. It was a triumph for leader Ed Davey. Since then, however, there has been growing restlessness over what many of his MPs feel has been a failure to capitalise on that performance, and fears that the party risks being squeezed out of the political picture.

The local elections in May produced mixed results for the Lib Dems. The party made a net gain of 224 councillors and took three councils from other parties. It was able to fend off Reform UK challenges in areas like Portsmouth, where it seized control of the city council, and made gains outside its traditional strongholds in areas such as Rugby and Ealing.

However, the results also showed that on average, the Lib Dems’ support was down by three points compared to 2022 and 2024, and they largely failed to make inroads in urban areas such as London, where a surge in support for the Green Party ate into Lib Dem votes.

While the party leadership hailed the 7 May results as an overall success, PoliticsHome can reveal that there is an acceptance among senior Lib Dems that it is time to look at changing the approach. To that end, the party is undergoing a strategy and policy overhaul, with key areas of discussion including the economy, welfare, and, as the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum approaches, a bolder stance on the European Union.

Speaking to PoliticsHome, Lib Dem MP Tom Gordon said that while the results last month were generally positive for his party, losses in the North that weren’t seen during the coalition years rang “alarm bells” for him.

For Gordon, the results were a “warning sign” that the Lib Dems have been operating in “a very cautious way” so far.

“I don’t think it was necessarily the wrong approach, but just given the nature and the timeline of where we’re at in this parliament and the political events and that fragmentation, I think there is now a rethinking of what we do, what we offer, how we’re more punchy, how we’re bolder, and what the offer from us is,” he told PoliticsHome.

The Lib Dems have tried to be bold before. The party’s adoption of the slogan “Bollocks to Brexit” in 2019 was an attempt to harness the anti-Brexit vote. But it fell flat. Seven years on, in a UK that is no longer a part of the EU, one senior Lib Dem MP told PoliticsHome, “the economy is stagnating, the trend is mediocre.”

There’s definitely a frustration that it feels like we’ve been talking about the same things – social care and rivers – and that just felt like we weren’t really moving forward

They felt that the party would need to announce EU policies that would be “eye-catching and bold”, with all options being considered. One senior MP said the outcome of those discussions would likely come before conference season.

The MP said the party is “starting to think about the economy in a much more structural manner”, and the frontbench team had been “set a task of properly scrutinising departmental budgets, [looking at] where money is being spent”.

They added that the party needs to “make sure we are economically credible”, with there being more appetite from figures at the top of the party towards thinking about what the Lib Dem offering would be in a potential future coalition.

Lib Dem MP and chair of the Commons Health and Social Care Committee, Layla Moran, told PoliticsHome: “There’s definitely a frustration that it feels like we’ve been talking about the same things – social care and rivers – and that just felt like we weren’t really moving forward.

“So us evolving the position and being quite mindful about how we do that now is really important.”

She added: “There are a lot of Lib Dem MPs geeking out on how we fix the deep issues that the country’s got, and we are going to come up with something that is quite bold and exciting and coherent.”

While Lib Dems like Gordon describe the process as a “rethink”, others are more reluctant to adopt that label, instead suggesting it is a natural evolution.

Daisy Cooper, Lib Dem deputy leader and Treasury spokesperson, told PoliticsHome the party was now looking at seats to target beyond just the so-called ‘Blue Wall’ – historically Conservative constituencies that have switched to the Lib Dems in recent years.

“Now that we have consolidated our existing seats, really our plan is very much to go out and to win more, but it’s not a change in direction, it’s just the next step.”

Whatever the official label of the process inside the party, the question of how the Lib Dems can cut through and make an impact in an increasingly fractured party system is a key concern. “It’s a massive challenge”, one senior party member told PoliticsHome, explaining it is often hard to achieve cut through with the Lib Dems’ characteristically “nuanced” policies.

As populist parties garner support, Gordon said the party cannot stand still. “There are people who are really cheesed off who are looking for alternatives, and we can’t miss the boat on that.

“We will be doing ourselves a disservice as a party unless we look to try and build that big tent that has an overarching strategy for the entirety of the country.”

The Liberal Democrats are also planning to prioritise championing environmentalism, in order to move into a space they say Zack Polanski’s Green Party is starting to abandon, according to The Telegraph.

Moran put it frankly: “We need to respond. We recognise that the strategy that we went into the general election with in 2024 is not the right strategy for now. And there’s a broad understanding of that across the party.”

Ed could easily have chosen the very tempting option to go full Polanski and become the populist Farage of the left

One senior Lib Dem told PoliticsHome that there is also an acceptance that they will need to be more “radical” in their policy making and “thinking more about what people wouldn’t expect us to do”. There is a broad consensus too that how these policies are then communicated to the public is key, with multiple sources telling PoliticsHome that the party is growing its social media teams in a bid to boost its digital operation.

Moran admitted that the party needs to be “better at selling [policy]”.

“That’s not just Ed – it’s all of us. We all need to get literate on social media; we all need to make this sexy again. We all need to understand how to sell this stuff in 30 seconds.”

Gordon, along with other Lib Dems, emphasised the need for his party to be “bold” and “popular” – but that while they wanted to “offer an alternative”, they want to find a “way to frame that in a way like we don’t want to burn the system down”. For many Lib Dem MPs, this means they want to see Davey continue as leader up until the next general election, despite criticisms that he could have done more to cut through with the public.

Lib Dem MP and former party leader Tim Farron told PoliticsHome: “Ed could easily have chosen the very tempting option to go full Polanski and become the populist Farage of the left.

“But [he] wisely and morally opted to be the party for sensible people. That’s a harder sell, but it’s the right move, so it involves a lot more work on the ground. But we are really good at that, and getting even better.”

One Lib Dem MP from the 2024 intake who wished to remain anonymous said: “We’ve been quieter than many would want us to be so far.

“If we get bolder and louder now, particularly on the economy, that opportunity to break through is still there for us.”

Newer MPs told PoliticsHome that they felt the party leadership had been engaging on how to move the party forward by meeting with backbench MPs, and carrying out extensive research via polling and data analysis.

Gordon told PoliticsHome: “I can understand why some colleagues have been frustrated that they don’t feel that’s happened so far. I am cautiously optimistic that that has been heard, and there will be some efforts to try and make sure that we do better, quite frankly, on that front.”

While calling for the party to consider how it might be involved in a future Westminster coalition was once a sign of rebellion, that line of thinking is now becoming more commonplace.

Gordon told PoliticsHome it was “absolutely” important to start thinking about policies for a coalition, and that the party would have that conversation going forward while also involving its members and affiliated organisations.

However, there is seemingly still a divide on this point, with senior party figures telling PoliticsHome that laying out options for a future coalition would be “indulgent naval gazing” when a general election is potentially still three years away, and that they should instead be focused on “the issues that really matter to people right now”.

3 min read9 min

Speaking to PoliticsHome in Makerfield on Friday, where he is standing as Labour’s by-election candidate later this month, the Greater Manchester mayor said: “We’ve all got to be concerned with getting the welfare bill down.

“I don’t think there’s any debate about that, to be honest, it’s how you do it.”

He argued that the best way to do so was through a more localised approach, rather than cuts made in Westminster.

“It’s an overhaul that the Whitehall system can’t really make,” he said. “It’s an argument actually for dealing with this in a much more devolved way than it is currently done.”

Burnham – who confirmed in a BBC debate on Thursday that he wants to replace Prime Minister Keir Starmer in No 10 if his bid to return to the House of Commons is successful – told PoliticsHome that local and regional authorities should be empowered to give out-of-work people the support they need for mental health problems.

“We don’t have a system that is set up to look and really get to the heart of why somebody isn’t able to sustain themselves in the labour market, and that’s been the journey that I’ve been on as mayor of Greater Manchester.

“But if you do give people what they’re looking for, I think you can support more people into work,” he said.

Welfare has emerged as a thorny issue for the Labour government since being elected in July 2024.

Starmer tried to introduce benefits reforms last year but was forced to abandon the plans by a major Labour backbench rebellion.

Private messages published by the government earlier this week showed Work and Pensions Secretary complaining to former US ambassador Peter Mandelson that “every meeting” he had with Labour MPs was a discussion about “who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others”.

A new report authored by former health secretary Alan Milburn found that the total annual cost to the taxpayer of just under one million young people not being in employment, education or training (NEET) is £125bn per year.

Speaking to PoliticsHome, Burnham described the report as a “very significant intervention”.

“I’ve contributed to it, and I think Alan is interested in what we’ve done because we’ve taken a different approach to supporting people into work.

“And this is the thing: The DWP (Department for Work and Pensions) system, I don’t think does do that, because it’s a very narrow approach in this day and age.”

He continued: “The reasons why people, particularly young people, may not be in work would be related to mental health or the housing situation or the debt they may be facing, a whole range of other things that are going on.”

Burnham criticised previous governments for encouraging more than 50 per cent of people to go to university.

“The obsession with the university route began with the Blair government, but then was very much continued by Gove in his reforms, [and] left 50 per cent or more of young people, particularly in an area like this [thinking], well, what about me?

In an interview with The House magazine in Makerfield, Burnham said he is “not going to hold back” on early reform to the House of Lords if he becomes prime minister.

“I can’t justify, personally, 800-plus members of the House of Lords. I don’t think – with great respect to many people in it, because I have true great respect, because there’s some incredible people in there – what the country spends on the House of Lords is actually justified by what the output is,” he said.